You may find this video informative because articulators are mostly all new atheists, I think that's the video I was referring to but not sure, it was long time ago I watched it:

Nonsense!
Atheists suggest there is close to zero evidence of the god posit.
The word 'preach,' refers to delivering a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church. Atheists don't preach. — universeness

by "preaching" I mean they're all shaking to be heard.
For them it is not enough that God doesn't exist, they strive to convert believers into non believers.

The most zealous speaker about new atheism and how there is no God is by no doubt Richard Dawkins, I remember one of his videos that he made (I can find it if you wish), he went near the crowd of Catholic sermon somewhere (there was some 1000 people attending the sermon), he was filming it and telling viewers something along the lines "look at all those people! they believe in God".
That's just pathetic and way beyond regular atheism, he is clearly preaching it, devoting his time to preaching atheism.

What you think of the new atheists and the far right? — Haglund

These so called "new atheists" are turning atheism into a new religion.

Atheists don't believe in God and end of story, new atheists go one step further and preach there is no God, that's a fundamental difference between the 2.

Movement does not require time; movement creates time. — val p miranda

Therefore if object does not move there is no time for that object?
don't objects age over time because they are subject to time?

That measurement can be made in different units, maybe hours, etc. So one serious trouble with time and space is that it is discussed without a correct definition: time is the measurement of motion and space is a real immaterial that makes mass, etc. possible. — val p miranda

time without space is not measurement of motion, distance is required in measurement which is space.
an object may move in any direction in 3D space, therefore without space there is no motion.

you may say an object moved for an hour, but what distance it made?
I'm trying to say that time and space cannot be separated, one without the other have no meaning.
space without time is fixed, not moving just staying in place.

I think "knowledge" cannot rest on false information, it should always result in true to be knowledge.

according to wikipedia X should be true:

A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:
P is true, and
S believes that P is true, and
S is justified in believing that P is true

your example is an example of stale information rather than knowledge.

Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God? — Philosophim

God is well defined, what is the definition of your first cause thing or being?
I don't even know what I'm supposed to imagine.

If anything could have been a first cause, then it is not logically necessary that this first cause be a God. — Philosophim

it's extremly difficult to conceive anything else. moreover it difficult to define it or to describe it somehow.

Why is matter dumb? — Jackson

ahahah :rofl:

if there is possibility for multiple first causes, and possibility for them to happen even today, that doesn't get rid of question, which of these first causes was very first.
I think it's important to know very first cause because that's what matters for universe coming into existence.
there may be first causes happening all the time, but what caused creation, it must have been only one cause.

I did not understand what you meant by this, could you explain? — Philosophim

you said "We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused"
if it's another existence then within another existence must have been first cause, and if it was then what is that another existence and what was first cause of it.
it may be yet another existence, and so on... leads to infinity

If a God created the universe as it is today, then that means a God can interact with the world. The term "supernatural" is a descriptor when we don't know how the God did it. If a God created it, then it interacted and caused it. Therefore there should be evidence. — Philosophim

I think of supernatural as something that does not exist in this reality, ie. it can't be touched, seen, smelled or observed.
it exists in another reality to which we have no access.

My new philosophical position, a modification of Occam's razor - When you have two equal theories about some aspect of reality, choose the one that is less annoying. — T Clark

funny hahah :grin:
but infinite universe and finite universe are not equal theories.

I like your breakdown.

While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today.
---
Further, because there is no reason why there should only be one first cause, there is no reason there cannot be other first causes, thus other Gods, or other alternatives such as particles that simply appeared. — Philosophim

It appears you base this upon virtual particles, because there are "gazilions" of virtual particles in the universe one may think there are gazilions first causes happening all the time.
Otherwise multiple first causes make no sense to me, isn't "first" cause suppose to mean literary "first" rather than one of many.
If there are multiple first causes then they are surely not first.
How do you explain multiple first causes?

This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be.

b. Proving if a particular parcel of existence is a first cause may be impossible.

If there are no limitations on what a first cause can be, then a particle with velocity could have popped into existence. If we traced causality back to this first cause particle, we would see it had velocity at its origin. That would cause us to try to find what caused the particle to have velocity. We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused. — Philosophim

another existence, leads to infinity.

If a God exists, and interacts with humanity today, there should be evidence for it, like the evidence of any other causality. — Philosophim

If God is supernatural being, then how is it possible to present any kind of evidence to non supernatural beings?
Only if God is not supernatural it makes sense to search for evidence.

Ok, but that doesn't negate my point. That would mean something made God. — Philosophim

If anything made God then God is not God (it's inferior), but rather whatever made God is the actual God. (superior God)
Therefore, it's impossible to know prior reason for God's existence because that would make God inferior and us superior.

This means your point doesn't make sense for God.

Is there a prior reason for God's existence? Note the word "prior" — Philosophim

If we are talking about God as supernatural being, (non material being or thing) then even if there is prior reason there is no way for us to know it because it's outside anything we can see or measure.

Infinite regress of cause — Jackson

infinity is not an answer because first cause is necessary what ever it may be, God or not God.

You don't take God as an explanation, that's fine but then at least there must be something else that breaks infinity.

fine, I don't find plausible or compelling that anything you can imagine doesn't require prior reason for its existence.
after all we are talking about creation of the universe or everything, there must be reason.
everything needs or has a reason.

What is the reason for God's existence? — Jackson

love,

love toward creation, love toward existence, love toward anything.

Any cause needs to be explained by a cause. — Jackson

which leads of infinity

When something has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules limiting how or what could exist. So anything you can imagine. — Philosophim

but there is reason for God's existence, while anything that you can imagine requires reason and first cause.

death in the west is not necessarily terrible among everyone.
In western culture there is a thing known as "death tourism", ex. in switzerland you can pay for tourism which will last few days for you to enjoy until you die with the help of assisted suicide.

can you please name few alternatives to God?

I believe some scientists are shaking out of desire to prove there is no God, for example they are in search of so called "God's particle", as if the ultimate goal is to prove or disprove God's creation.

Why didn't they name it something else? something which would sound more scientific.

Why's that? — Haglund

question what was there before becomes infinitely never ending question.
in other words, scientists will never be able to defeat God.

If you think there never was nothing then that implies matter is eternal?
if matter is eternal then that's a big problem.

I don't think science (or anyone) can determined if there was ever nothing. The 'something from nothing' trope seems unique to religious worldviews. — Tom Storm

I think you're wrong on that because scientists are trying to answer something from nothing rather than avoiding it.

I posted 2 videos some time ago which shows sceitsts trying to explain their efforts about something from nothing:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12061/can-theory-of-nothing-challenge-god/p1

God is the easiest answer obviously, hence it's definition states that God's existence is "necessary".

But scientists don't use God as an explanation.
if God is excluded then the question is how something come out of nothing?

I think major obstacle to finding a solution for climate change is the need for sense of security.

Every country in the world seeks the sense of security, militarily, economically etc. this results is less effort and space for climate change resolutions.

For example if China or the US is to limit CO2 emissions it will cost them a lot economically, but both would rather spend these resources on increasing military budget because there are tensions and lack of sense of safety.

a priori knowledge is supposed to be theoretical right?

Problem is that heaven and hell is Christian belief but Sider presents it outside of that context.

What if that's a particle? God is, according to some, the simplest thing imaginable (re Divine Simplicity) and it doesn't get simpler than a point particle, ja? — Agent Smith

Nein,
God is the most unimaginable being.

Have you heard of Anselm's argument?

If we know nothing, we still have self conscience and awareness, does that count as knowledge of some sort?

ex. If I know nothing I still know that I am.

origin of prayer is subject to development of religion, specifically early beliefs and folklore beliefs.

recall that in ancient Israel, before Jews conquered promised lands, they were faced with tribes who sent their children into fire to please pagan gods.

In todays mexico, early tribes sacrificed people or a regular basis because belief was, if they don't do so it will be end of sunlight and thus end of the world.

These early rituals become too harsh to bear any longer at some point (which is evident and not new), therefore there was the need to please gods in less painful way, and the prayer was born.

basically I think prayer was replaced with blood sacrifice at some point because it would be unusual to quit blood sacrifice without proper replacement, it would mean the end of beliefs and religion.

What could possibly be simplest explanation for all phenomena? A ToE (theory of everything)? One with just one entity obviously, oui? — Agent Smith

Problem with explaining all phenomena with God is that many phenomena used to be explained with God but later it turned out the truth or explanation had nothing to do with God.

Our mind is a representation and a separation from reality. — chiknsld

what about, our mind is a biological phenomena and as such it is reality? (ie. there is no separation)

Putin ordered to lock down azovstal steel plant where last troops remain.
azovstal contains underground tunnels where they hide and hope russians will get in for fight.

Now their choice is to either go out and surrender or stay in and starve to death or to perform suicide.

it's very interesting and funny situation...
What do you think what will these people do? surrender to perform suicide?

Religions use an inferior way of knowing - faith and authority – and so cannot agree. Christianity can’t even agree on how to be saved. And religion has dogma, which cannot be rejected.

Science uses a better way of knowing – loosely called the scientific method. Science converges to reality. Scientists throughout the world accept the sciences of chemistry, biology, etc. while religions have had thousands of years to converge, but haven’t. Ask a Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist what happens after death and you’ll get contradictory answers. — Art48

religion vs science should be viewed as:
1. religion - how things should be
2. science - how things are

That's a fundamental difference.

By truth I mean correspondence with reality. — Art48

Shouldn't truth answer all of the questions rather than being limited to reality?

for example religious "truth" (in Christianity) answers questions about salvation and purpose of existence but it does not answer scientific questions.

Therefore I think it's mandatory to first agree on what is truth?
It's impossible to search for truth without first agreeing on what such truth should answer.

I think truth must be universal rather than limited to anything.

first humans had no knowledge other than that driven by instinct and the need to survive, to feed, need for shelter etc.

fundamental or core knowledge comes from needs to survive.
all the knowledge is based around survival, either of an individual or group of people.

technically Atheism is a view that God does not exists rather than nothing supernatural exists.
There are many supernatural phenomena that have nothing to do with God or religious point of view.

Knowing that it's also worth knowing there are 2 kinds of Atheism existing today:
1. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist and it doesn't care about God, something not worth discussing any further by such people (true atheism)
2. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist but with firm belief it's so and desire to spread the word about God nonexistence. (this is a form of religion, strong belief there is no God and desire to get followers)

Then also God and deity are 2 very different things, I think you may want to know this.

I don't think either of mentioned points of views are asinine because lack of knowledge is what makes these points of view foolish, I would say that these points of view are contradictory rather than asinine.

i. created nature wastefully indifferent and ravaged by gratuitous suffering
and/or
ii. created us sick but commands us to be well
and/or
iii. eternally punishes us for our temporal crimes

is certainly not "fair" (just). — 180 Proof

I don't know to which God you are referring to but:
i. is necessity for free will to be unconditional and real
ii. is generalization
iii. is false because there is forgiveness of mistakes or crimes


The gift of free will constitutes fairness.

So, what’s the answer? Does it make sense to hold people accountable for their actions given that there is no free will? — T Clark

If there is no free will, then this question is equally non answerable because what sense does it make to decide whether to hold someone accountable or not, if there is no free will?

Wouldn't answering that question imply free will?

I once watched an interesting video on YT involving Richard Dawkins, unfortunately I can't find which one it was but you should really watch some of his videos on atheism to get my point.

Richard Dawkins is an example of an atheist that passionately believes there is no God, this belief is what makes atheism a sort of religion.

I have nothing against atheists really, I respect their choice and way of life, but some seem like they're worshiping some sort of a God.